139 replies to this topic

[Ryokens leap]

Leg structure quirks is what keeps the SHC alive when it gets caught in a leg smashing jump jet terrain collision trampoline loop. SHC legs are a prime target for enemy fire and quirks gave it that little extra time to slip away. I've stopped putting $ into the game and now that my fav chassis is less fun to play I foresee a reduction in playtime in the near future as well. My Whiz Kids click base mechs are starting to look fun again.

[Steve Pryde]

adamts01, on 21 January 2017 - 07:35 AM, said:

Arma 3. I was missing out all those years while waiting for PGI to fox MWO. Mechs are awesome, mechanics are solid, graphics are beautiful, team death match sucks. Planetside 2 was better, Arma 3 blows them both out of the water.

I'm with you, it's all decent except the game modes. They are feeling bland on the long run. Don't understand some streamers that are streaming on Twitch in quick play mode for hours every ***** day, rly.

Edited by Steve Pryde, 21 January 2017 - 07:56 AM.

[Albino Boo]

Bud Crue, on 21 January 2017 - 07:30 AM, said:

Please expound.

Are you saying only a minority will view the latest pass in a negative light and that the larger majority will benefit or see the pass as a positive? I ask because to my mind this is another case of a pass seeming to hurt a majority of players.

I mean consider the Cataphract buff. I am very happy about it. But I am one of the Phracts more dedicated fans. I don't expect the majority of players will care. However a LOT of players run Warhammers and that nerf will hurt their performance and enjoyment to some degree.

Its very simple PGI balances so that mechs fall within spread of performance for the majority of players. If it's above the spread it gets nerfed and if it's under it gets buffed.

[Bud Crue]

Albino Boo, on 21 January 2017 - 07:56 AM, said:

Its very simple PGI balances so that mechs fall within spread of performance for the majority of players. If it's above the spread it gets nerfed and if it's under it gets buffed.

Hmm...

Not buying that the Locust 3V is performing within the standard deviation of performance for the majority of players, or the Spider 5V or Panthers, or Jenners, or the Phoenix Hawk heroes, or the most heavily of quirked Vindicators, or Kintaros or Mist Lynxs, or Ice Ferrets or Gargoyles. I don't think for a moment that the data suggests these mechs are within acceptable performance -or even average performance- criteria for the "majority of players".

In fact I expect that only expert players get anything approaching decent results with these mechs, yet PGI does nothing.

Then consider what they do when a variant is truly exceptional in the "OP" sense? Remember the Kodiak-3? Yes, it was problematic. What did they to to bring it in line? Nerfed UACs, then when that shifted the meta they nerfed Gauss range, then they nerfed quirks on ALL the Kodiaks, then finally the torso characteristics of just the Kodiak 3. This process effectively nerfed dozens of mechs that there is no way their is data suggesting these innocent victims necessitated a nerf (Shadow Hawk 3M needed a nerf? Really?). Yet, shockingly (sarcasm) it was only when they finally focused on the performance of the variant in question was the nerfing finally somewhat effective.

Maybe you are right and that PGI balances so that mechs fall within a "spread of performance for the majority of players", but given how many mechs appear to many of us to be crap (see above) and are allowed to remain so, or that many mech variants that might be 'OP' end up getting nerfs that affect ALL the mechs of a class rather than just that which was problematic, suggests something very different to me.

[Albino Boo]

Bud Crue, on 21 January 2017 - 08:26 AM, said:

Hmm...

Not buying that the Locust 3V is performing within the standard deviation of performance for the majority of players, or the Spider 5V or Panthers, or Jenners, or the Phoenix Hawk heroes, or the most heavily of quirked Vindicators, or Kintaros or Mist Lynxs, or Ice Ferrets or Gargoyles. I don't think for a moment that the data suggests these mechs are within acceptable performance -or even average performance- criteria for the "majority of players".

In fact I expect that only expert players get anything approaching decent results with these mechs, yet PGI does nothing.

Then consider what they do when a variant is truly exceptional in the "OP" sense? Remember the Kodiak-3? Yes, it was problematic. What did they to to bring it in line? Nerfed UACs, then when that shifted the meta they nerfed Gauss range, then they nerfed quirks on ALL the Kodiaks, then finally the torso characteristics of just the Kodiak 3. This process effectively nerfed dozens of mechs that there is no way their is data suggesting these innocent victims necessitated a nerf (Shadow Hawk 3M needed a nerf? Really?). Yet, shockingly (sarcasm) it was only when they finally focused on the performance of the variant in question was the nerfing finally somewhat effective.

Maybe you are right and that PGI balances so that mechs fall within a "spread of performance for the majority of players", but given how many mechs appear to many of us to be crap (see above) and are allowed to remain so, or that many mech variants that might be 'OP' end up getting nerfs that affect ALL the mechs of a class rather than just that which was problematic, suggests something very different to me.

If you ask a tier 5 player if LRMs are overpowered or underpowered, what do you think the answer will be? Ask the same question of tier 1 player is that answer going to be the same? Your perception is not hard data.

[Bud Crue]

Albino Boo, on 21 January 2017 - 08:32 AM, said:

If you ask a tier 5 player if LRMs are overpowered or underpowered, what do you think the answer will be? Ask the same question of tier 1 player is that answer going to be the same? Your perception is not hard data.

Exactly. We need PGI to share the data so that we can understand what it is they are doing and why. If LRMs get nerfed because the majority thinks they are "OP" it doesn't make it any more palatable to the rest of the playing population when PGI says something like "LRMs were performing above their target performance criteria" or whatever. They need to help us understand. Until they do we are left exclusively with our subjective view of things.

[Gas Guzzler]

Albino Boo, on 21 January 2017 - 06:30 AM, said:

Why is your view more valid than that of tier 3 player? There are more of them than tier 1 players.

Actually, Russ said in a tweet recently that the majority of players are in Tier 1, 4, and 5, so there are less Tier 2-3 players than Tier 1 players.

Tier 1 is diverse enough in terms of player skill. Droppong down to someone who has been playing for a while but is in Tier 3 isn't good, because at the very least the long time Tier 3 player is not concerning himself with running optimized builds or in general trying to play smartly at a high level, so their opinions will be skewed. For instance, people complaining about laser vomit OP a year after it was dethroned by dakka/PPFLD is a great example of this.

[MacClearly]

Albino Boo, on 21 January 2017 - 07:21 AM, said:

PGI has a choice, it can balance to the needs of a few hundred people and ensure they have a reasonable balance   or the could balance to the needs of majority of the population  and ensure they  have reasonable  balance. Which is in the best interest of the finances of PGI, the few hundred or the few thousand?

The few hundred. Easy choice if your interest is to make the game the best it can be instead of a watered down crap fest geared towards infants.

[Mystere]

MacClearly, on 21 January 2017 - 07:12 AM, said:

Just as you wouldn't change the size of a football across the board because it didn't fit the hands of the 12 year olds playing the game, you don't balance a game based on its worst players. A game or sport will always suffer if you water it down to the lowest common denominator. What is happening in tier 4 and 5 with people either learning the game or bad at it, is not what anyone should be considering when thinking about balance or the performance of a mech. That may sound harsh, but it is the only way to ensure that you don't turn chess into checkers...

Well, it can be reasonably argued that an online video game needs large numbers of paying players. If said number can be achieved by catering to the lowest common denominator, then it will be done. Whether you or I like it is inconsequential.

This is where pure economics (i.e. making money) easily trumps science (i.e. balance). Yesterday should have clearly pounded that into people's collective minds.

Star Commander Horse, on 21 January 2017 - 07:14 AM, said:

Funny...I was right back into my old routine of pumping $150/month into MWO too.

150 USD per month? That's bonkers!!!

Edited by Mystere, 21 January 2017 - 08:55 AM.

[Widowmaker1981]

Albino Boo, on 21 January 2017 - 08:32 AM, said:

If you ask a tier 5 player if LRMs are overpowered or underpowered, what do you think the answer will be? Ask the same question of tier 1 player is that answer going to be the same? Your perception is not hard data.

The thing is, those T5s and T4s who are new players and learning will be T1s eventually because of the upward biased tier system. T1s will be T1s forever. The only people who stay in low tiers are those that are simply not attempting to play well - why should people who arent even trying to maximise their performance care about the minutiae of balance? It makes no difference to them.

Should LRMs be effectively useless for by far the greatest percentage of every even semi competitive* players overall game time?

*(and by that i dont mean involved in the comp scene, i just mean that they care about winning)

Youd have much more of a point if we had a sensible, zero sum, PSR system which actually separated players into skill buckets, but we dont have that, we have an XP bar.

Edited by Widowmaker1981, 21 January 2017 - 09:01 AM.

[a gaijin]

Mystere, on 21 January 2017 - 08:50 AM, said:

150 USD per month? That's bonkers!!!

I had a feeling someone might mention that, and yea maybe so, but it's a part my expendable income and I either go drinking on it, or spend it on MWO.
I don't need to buy any more real world stuff--my place is already cluttered enough. "My museum is full."
So I just spend expendable income on service related stuff.

So yea... I agree with you..bonkers.
Wana go get some drinks?

[Mystere]

Star Commander Horse, on 21 January 2017 - 09:01 AM, said:

I had a feeling someone might mention that, and yea maybe so, but it's a part my expendable income and I either go drinking on it, or spend it on MWO.
I don't need to buy any more real world stuff--my place is already cluttered enough. "My museum is full."
So I just spend expendable income on service related stuff.

So yea... I agree with you..bonkers.
Wana go get some drinks?

I still have a case and a half of various wines. As such I'm good. But, thanks anyway.

[MacClearly]

Mystere, on 21 January 2017 - 08:50 AM, said:

Well, it can be reasonably argued that an online video game needs large numbers of paying players. If said number can be achieved by catering to the lowest common denominator, then it will be done. Whether you or I like it is inconsequential.

This is where pure economics (i.e. making money) easily trumps science (i.e. balance). Yesterday should have clearly pounded that into people's collective minds. https://static.mwomercs.com/forums//public/style_emoticons/default/ph34r.png



150 USD per month? That's bonkers!!! https://static.mwomercs.com/forums//public/style_emoticons/default/wacko.png

Yup, you could argue that. It would however make it a worse game and not competitive. So the dreams of it being an esport would be out and PGI should then turn to Disney in hopes to market it to kiddies.

[a gaijin]

Mystere, on 21 January 2017 - 09:08 AM, said:

I still have a case and a half of various wines. As such I'm good. But, thanks anyway.

lol you're welcome
I've had two bottles of Chardonnay tonight....so far.
Just changed over to chuhai. I will probably have a mean hangover tomorrow, leading to lowering my stats even more cause I know I'll still do a few quick-plays tomorrow despite the hangover

[Felbombling]

PGI is never going to achieve game balance so long as we're allowed the level of freedom we currently enjoy in the Mech Lab.

We are a strange player base to appease, are we not? Lore-hounds want Clan Mechs to over-power Inner Sphere Mechs because 'reasons'. Players who want a fair gaming experience don't want any difference at all between the two, screw the game canon. The guy complaining today about nerfs to his favourite Mech was, two weeks ago, bragging about how amazing his favourite Mech is. Nerf that Mech, PGI, why are you so horrible at game balance... it is too powerful!! Hey, why did you nerf my amazing Mech that topped the leaderboards by a country mile?! F-you, PGI...

I love it around here.

[a gaijin]

MacClearly, on 21 January 2017 - 09:12 AM, said:

Yup, you could argue that. It would however make it a worse game and not competitive. So the dreams of it being an esport would be out and PGI should then turn to Disney in hopes to market it to kiddies.

You have a good point.
It all boils down to them asking themselves, "do we wana sell more units?" or "do we wana be a no-sh*t, serious esport?"

Truth is, realistically you can't really focus on both. Got to pick one if it's going to be done right.

StaggerCheck, on 21 January 2017 - 09:21 AM, said:

PGI is never going to achieve game balance so long as we're allowed the level of freedom we currently enjoy in the Mech Lab.

We are a strange player base to appease, are we not? Lore-hounds want Clan Mechs to over-power Inner Sphere Mechs because 'reasons'. Players who want a fair gaming experience don't want any difference at all between the two, screw the game canon. The guy complaining today about nerfs to his favourite Mech was, two weeks ago, bragging about how amazing his favourite Mech is. Nerf that Mech, PGI, why are you so horrible at game balance... it is too powerful!! Hey, why did you nerf my amazing Mech that topped the leaderboards by a country mile?! F-you, PGI...

I love it around here.

Yea, these forums and this community...
It's kinda like being in a bar...full of MechWarrior & BattleTech nerds

And I'm one of em

[Verkhne]

/sigh so because of P2W omnipods (which many of us dont have) the entire chassis is nerfed. Even those with the new, recently acquired,pods are gonna feel shafted let alone those with out. Who does this nerf leave happy PGI ?

[MacClearly]

Star Commander Horse, on 21 January 2017 - 09:24 AM, said:

You have a good point.
It all boils down to them asking themselves, "do we wana sell more units?" or "do we wana be a no-sh*t, serious esport?"

Truth is, realistically you can't really focus on both. Got to pick one if it's going to be done right.

I personally believe and feel history backs me on this belief, is that for something to truly be successful you need for it to strive towards excellence. If PGI goes the route of making it so simple a six year old will be able to master it, six year olds will come out to master it and then leave when they are seven....

Making a better overall game that has an appreciable skill at the upper level does more to promote the game than not. It's why there is Grand Masters in chess but not checkers. At some point PGI has to look at where the complaints are coming from and evaluate if it makes sense to consider them or assign them weight. PGI should be focused on being more pragmatic with its decisions instead of what seems to be reactionary and almost emotional, which is just a strange way for a company to be operating.

[Sniper09121986]

StaggerCheck, on 21 January 2017 - 09:21 AM, said:

PGI is never going to achieve game balance so long as we're allowed the level of freedom we currently enjoy in the Mech Lab.

We are a strange player base to appease, are we not? Lore-hounds want Clan Mechs to over-power Inner Sphere Mechs because 'reasons'. Players who want a fair gaming experience don't want any difference at all between the two, screw the game canon. The guy complaining today about nerfs to his favourite Mech was, two weeks ago, bragging about how amazing his favourite Mech is. Nerf that Mech, PGI, why are you so horrible at game balance... it is too powerful!! Hey, why did you nerf my amazing Mech that topped the leaderboards by a country mile?! F-you, PGI...

I love it around here.

For reasons unknown even to myself I spent hundreds on this game and keep coming back just to see the news and read the forums. Maybe it would help if there were a 1:1 tabletop-accurate game with hexes and turns and Wars of Reaving tech and stuff, because that would give the purists a respite they need to find MWO more bearable for the funsies, and the "shoot big robots" crowd would get what it wants. That is why we have all the attitude around here with neither party able or willing to back down.

Star Commander Horse, on 21 January 2017 - 09:24 AM, said:

You have a good point.
It all boils down to them asking themselves, "do we wana sell more units?" or "do we wana be a no-sh*t, serious esport?"

Truth is, realistically you can't really focus on both. Got to pick one if it's going to be done right.

See above, but hardcore competitive games can be indecently fun as well, as UT and Quake series convincingly demonstrate

[Albino Boo]

Widowmaker1981, on 21 January 2017 - 08:59 AM, said:

The thing is, those T5s and T4s who are new players and learning will be T1s eventually because of the upward biased tier system. T1s will be T1s forever. The only people who stay in low tiers are those that are simply not attempting to play well - why should people who arent even trying to maximise their performance care about the minutiae of balance? It makes no difference to them.

Should LRMs be effectively useless for by far the greatest percentage of every even semi competitive* players overall game time?

*(and by that i dont mean involved in the comp scene, i just mean that they care about winning)

Youd have much more of a point if we had a sensible, zero sum, PSR system which actually separated players into skill buckets, but we dont have that, we have an XP bar.

I know plenty of people who have been playing this game a year and are still tier 3. The psr is not an XP bar, many people do not develop the tactical awarenesses and the aim to get into tier 1-2. Getting into tier 1 is more about the aiblity to manage your loses so that you get the = or a small loss of psr. Which one of the reasons why I have over 1400 drops in a shadow cat.